




DEFENCE 



Oy THE USE Off 



C|e §il)le in \\i f ublic %i\u\$. 



ARGUMENT 



HENRY F. DURANT, ESQ., 



ELIOT SCHOOL CASE. 



/^:? 



BOSTON: 
TICKNOB AND FIELDS 

M. DCCC. LIX. 



DEFENCE 



OF THE USE OF 



C|e §iljle in i^t f ublic ^c^aals. 



ARGUMENT 



HENRY F. DURANT, ESQ., 



ELIOT SCHOOL CASE, 






BOSTON: 
TICKNOR AND FIELDS 

M. DCCC. LIX. 






^^^lEil^TwiiiirPri^te^r^^^g i"'^''- 






Henry F. Durant, Esq. : — 

Dear Sir, — The undersigned are desirous that your Argument in the Eliot 
School ease should be more widely circulated, and therefore request that you 
would furnish a corrected copy of the same for publication. 

And oblige, yours, &c., 

ARTHUR B. FULLER, 

Pastor New North Church. 

JOHN W. DADMUN, 

Pastor of the Fitst Methodist Church. 

N. M. GAYLORD, 

First Universalist Church. 

G. W. BLAGDEN, 

Senior Pastor of the Old South Church. 

Boston, March 31, 1859. 



\ 



THE ELIOT SCHOOL CASE 



On Monday, the fourteenth day of March last, the pubHc were much 
excited by tlie announcement that there had been an open rebellion in the 
Eliot School, one of the largest grammar schools in Boston, and that all the 
Catholic children had refused to obey the established regulations of the 
School Committee in regard to the reading of the Holy Scriptures and the 
recital of the Ten Commandments. Over three hundred pupils peremp- 
torily refused to obey these regulations, and were therefore dismissed 
from the school. 

On the following Wednesday, a complaint was made in the police 
court by William Wall, the father of one of the pupils, against McLau- 
rin F. Cooke, the second or sub-master of the school, charging him with 
an assault and battery upon his boy, Thomas J. Wall. The trial was 
protracted for a number of days, and necessarily postponed on account 
of the public business, until the twenty-fifth of March, when this argu- 
ment was addressed to the court on behalf of the defendant. The fol- 
lowing facts, which appeared at the trial, are referred to in the debate. 

On Sunday, the 6th of March, there was a meeting in a basement 
room of St. Mary's Chui'ch, a church of the Jesuits, on Endicott Street, 
at which a few of the Eliot School children, and some of the parents, 
were present. What took place did not fully appear, although it was 
admitted that some directions were given to the children by Father 
Wiget, the priest, in regard to repeating the Ten Commandments in 
school. On the Monday morning following the boy, Thomas J. Wall, 
refused to join with the other scholars in repeating the Ten Command- 
ments, saying that he did not know them. He was reminded by the 
teacher that he had always been m the habit of repeating them before, 
but still persisted in his denial. He was then taken to Mr. Mason, the 
Principal of the school, who told him that he must not attend school 
until his father came with him, and the matter was inquired into. On 
Wednesday the father brought back his boy, and gave directions that he 
should repeat the commandments, as the others did, or that he should be 
punished severely. On Thm-sday he came again and asked if his son 



had obeyed the regulations, and was told that he would not be required 
to do so until the next Monday. He then repeated the order to punish 
the boy severely, if he refused, and gave very particular directions not 
to dismiss him from school, if he disobeyed, but to keep him and punish 
him severely. On the Sunday following the children, about nine hun- 
dred in number, who attended St. Mary's Church, were all collected and 
instructed by Father Wiget, that they must not repeat the Ten Command- 
ments, or join in the Lord's Prayer, and he threatened them with 
exposure from the altar, if they disobeyed him. On Monday there was 
a general disturbance and disorder in the different school-rooms during 
the usual reading of the Bible. The boys scraped with their feet, and 
made much disturbance by whistling and muttering ; they afterwards all 
refused to say the Loi'd's Prayer, or recite the Ten Commandments. It 
was testified that the boy Wall was the most active, and appeared to be 
the one to whom the others looked as foremost. He was called to the 
teacher's desk and examined, and then was Avhipped for his misconduct. 
It was claimed that the boy was severely whipped, but the evidence of a 
physician who was called by him, showed that the whipping was not 
severe, and that all marks or effects of it disappeared the next day. 

The boy and his father were called as witnesses, and among other 
things, the boy said that a brass medal silver washed was given to him 
by Father Wiget the night before he was called as a witness. This 
took place at the Jesuit's house, but the boy said he did not know why 
the medal was given him, and could not recollect any thing said to him 
at the interview, except " to go home to his supper." The defence was 
placed upon the ground, that the regulations of the school were proper, 
and that there was a planned and concerted rebellion to overthrow the 
discipline of the school, and set the master's authority at defiance, and i 

that such misconduct not only justified, but required a much more 
severe punishment than was given. The counsel for the prosecution 
took the gi'ound that the school regulations were illegal and unconstitu- 
tional, and thus the great question in the cause was raised. 



ARGUMENT, 



May it please your Honor : — 

The spectacle which is presented to-day in this court, is indeed 
novel and strange. A worthy teacher of one of our principal 
public schools, who is bound by our wise and benevolent laws 
to impart the great gifts of free instruction in piety and morality 
and learning to his pupils, is arraigned as a criminal — arraigned 
by one of his own pupils at the bar of this court as a criminal 
because he has attempted to do his duty — because he has obeyed 
that ancient, wise and beneficent law, which in words of simple 
and familiar beauty enjoined upon him to " impress upon the 
minds of the children committed to his care, those principles of 
piety, justice, love of country, humanity and universal benevo- 
lence, which are the basis of a Republican government, and 
tend to secure the blessings of liberty." 

He stands indeed before the bar of this court arraigned as a 
criminal, but he stands there in proud humility, proud of his 
position, conscious that in the execution of the delicate and 
important trusts committed to him, he has done his duty boldly 
and manfully — confident that the laws will pi-otect him — confi- 
dent that the hearts and the minds of his fellow-citizens will 
sustain him gratefully, because in the hour of peril and of duty 
he was true to the laws. 

But this is not the whole picture. In the dark back ground 
are seen his accusers ; the real criminals, who have usurped 
the place and the name of accusers. And who are they ? 
Some are seen and some are unseen, some are known and 
some are unknown, some are seen in full view, while some are 
only seen as doubtful and mysterious shadows ; but the brief, 
strange record of this case tells its own significant story. 



For years we have enjoyed the highest blessing which even 
a free government can bestow upon its citizens — the blessing of 
education, unbought, unsold — free to all, common to all, with- 
out distinction of birth, or sect or race. Under the wise and 
parental system of our public schools, our cliildren were taught 
together as one free, and happy, and united family. The chil- 
dren of the emigrant and the alien sat side by side with the' son 
of the free-born American — they learned from the same book — 
they shared the same instruction, profited by the same culture 
— and they left the school together to enter upon the broad 
highway of life with the same lights of learning behind them, 
the same stars of hope and promise before them, free and equal 
under the laws. 

This was the story of yesterday ; but to-day we find a sad and 
mournful and ominous change. Suddenly — at the absolute will 
of one man — by the exercise of a dark and dangerous, a fearfully 
dangerous power, hundreds of children of tender years, children 
who were living in the full enjoyment of liberty and of learning, 
are not only arrayed in open rebellion against our established 
regulations, and in open violation of bur laws, but are deliber- 
ately taught that they are to sacrifice all the benefits and bles- 
sings of free education, and are led out by their priest from the 
protecting roof of the school-house to the temptations, the 
dissipations and crimes of the streets. This course is even now 
justified and persevered in ; the same influences are still at work 
in our schools, and we are told to-day by the advocate of those 
deluded children, that this dangerous and unscrupulous priest 
was in the right, that the laws under which my client justifies 
himself, were rightly denouuced from the altar, were properly 
set at defiance by the pupils, and are destructive of the liberty 
of conscience, intolerant, illegal, unconstitutional and void. 

Who is this priest who comes here from a foreign land to 
instruct us in our laws ? For whom, and on whose behalf, is 
this charge of intolerance — this charge that we are violating 
the sacred liberty of conscience — brought against the people 
and the laws of Massachusetts ? Can it be that one of the 
Society of Jesuits is the accuser ? I wish to discuss this case 
as calmly as I may. I wish to say nothing to arouse feelings 
which cannot easily be allayed ; but there are memories which 
we can never banish from heart or brain ; there are records on 



earth and in heaven which can never be blotted out ; there are 
pages of history written in letters of fire, and of blood; and the 
man who leads forth his flock of children, and boldly arrays 
them in open defiance of our established laws, who audaciously 
and ungratefully assails our established regulations as intoler- 
ant and uncliristian, and as violating the sacred liberty of 
conscience, would do well to look behind him, as well as before 
— would do well to pause and reflect if he is in a position 
which authorizes such grave accusations, or justifies such 
violence. 

But I must discuss this case with more of method and order, 
and I will not answer this attack upon ouf laws and our institu- 
tions until I have shown how material it is to the decision of 
this cause — how vital and deadly a blow is aimed at our institu- 
tions, our liberties, and our laws. 

My client is charged with an unlawful assault upon one of 
his pupils. There was a pretence originally made, that he had 
been guilty of needless and unreasonable severity in enforcing 
the established regulation of the school, but that pretence has 
faded — and faded away into utter insignificance. 

The evidence of the boy himself, and of the physician who 
saw him, showed that the punishment was neither unusual nor 
severe. 

The evidence of the, boy himself showed that it was necessary 
he should be punished, unless all hopes of obedience and control 
in that school were to be abandoned forever. But what can 
be said now, after we have proved by witness upon witness 
— that gross violation of the discipline of the school — the 
indecent and riotous conduct of the children — their wilful 
and openly concerted rebellion against the masters — that 
planned and arranged conspiracy among the scholars, that 
they would unite together and overthrow the authority of 
the teachers, and the regulations of the school ? 

What justification can be offered for all this, unless indeed 
the novel rule is to be established in Massachusetts that a Jesuit 
can dictate from Endicott Street as to the management of our 
public schools. Unless his authority is to be superior to our 
laws ; — unless he can set up his will as supreme ; — unless his 
nod can justify any disobedience, any disrespect, any violence, 
on the part of the scholars ; — then it was the plain duty of the 



8 

teacher to maintain the discipline of his school ; and to enforce 
those rules which he was as much bound to observe and execute 
as the scholars were bound to obey. 

Need I say, in a court of law, that no punishment could be 
severe in a case like this ? Need I allude to the authorities 
which give to the master in the school-room the power and the 
duty of a father — the power to enforce obedience, and punish 
resistance, especially such organized and open resistance as this? 
Need I remind the Court of the other facts in this case, the 
authority whicli the father himself gave to the master to punish 
his stubborn boy — the authority never withdrawn, and never 
revoked ? No ! may it please your Honor, I pass by all these 
points, for I wish for time to discuss the only question which 
requires, or deserves discussion — the real question in the case. 
And that is, whether the regulations which have been referred 
to are illegal and unconstitutional ? 

The laws with regard to our public schools are so dear to 
every citizen, so important in our free government, that they 
are familiar to every one. Free schools are established and 
maintained at the public charge. The children of all citizens 
without any distinction whatever, are allowed to attend them, 
and all receive the same course of instruction and are governed 
by the same rules. The general nature of the studies is regu- 
lated by positive statutes, but the details of discipline, the 
selection of teachers, the choice of books and the general man- 
agement of the schools is given to school committees ; which 
have large legislative, and almost judicial powers delegated to 
them by the laws. The general law which regulates the course 
and class of studies in our schools, is found in the Revised 
Statutes, chapter 23, section 7. 

It provides that "/)i>^?/, justice, a sacred regard to truth, love 
to their country, humanity and universal benevolence, sobriety, 
industry, frugality, chastity, moderation and temperance," 
should be taught. All these are to be taught, but first of all, 
piety. 

In the execution of the duty which is imposed upon our 
school committee, of prescribing the mode and the means by 
which piety shall be taught ; in the execution of the statute of 
1855, which requires that a portion of the Holy Bible should be 
read daily in every school ; and in the execution, also, of their 



general duty, to direct the discipline and management of our 
schools, they have passed the following regulations, which apply 
to all the public schools in Boston : — 

The morning exercises of all the schools shall commence with reading 
a portion of Scripture, in each room, by the teacher, and the Board 
recommend that the reading be followed with the Lord's Prayer, 
repeated by the teacher alone, or chanted by the teacher and children in 
concert, and that the afternoon session close with appropriate singing ; 
and also that the pupils learn the Ten Commandments and repeat them 
once a week. 

Substantially similar regulations, embracing a part or the 
whole of these recommendations, have always existed in our 
New England schools. These precise regulations have existed 
in our Boston schools for years. They were published widely, 
they were read in the schools, they were universally known, 
and universally acquiesced in. They were established, not for 
Catholics alone nor for Protestants alone — they were estab- 
lished to favor no particular creed ; no one yet has dared to 
charge that they were established with any sectarian views — 
they were established for all, acquiesced in by all — and no one 
can doubt that they were useful and beneficial to all. 

Had there been any feeling that these regulations were arbi- 
trary or unjust — had there been any conscience so sensitive that 
they became a burden — had any parent, or any child, of any 
sect of Christians objected to them, there was the fullest oppor- 
tunity for remonstrance and redress. But it was not so. No 
teacher was requested to suspend the rules, there was no remon- 
strance to the school committee — no request to modify or 
abolish these apparently wise and useful regulations — there was 
no appeal to the courts, which enforce the laws, nor to the 
legislature which enacts them. The children obeyed without a 
murmur, and the parents acquiesced either from indifference, 
or from satisfaction. 

It was in opposition to these regulations so long obeyed, so 
long acquiesced in, under which year after year our Catholic 
citizens with pride and satisfaction saw their children receiving 
and sharing with all others the benefits of a free and liberal 
education, that it has been found necessary to resort to open 
violence, to a deliberately planned and arranged rebellion 



10 

against the discipline and authority of our schools, — a rebellion 
which might gratify the ambition or aid the far reaching designs 
of the priest, but could only end in the ruin of those misguided 
children, who were at once their tools and their victims. These 
are the regulations, and this is their history. 

And now, since it so plainly appears that my client was 
justified in punishing this deliberate and wilful rebellion against 
these rules so long established, so long acquiesced in, so long a 
part of our invaluable public school system, the counsel for the 
prosecution are forced to take the ground that these laws and 
regulations themselves are illegal and unconstitutional. 

The Court cannot liave forgotten the very able and learned 
opening argument of the counsel for ,tlie prosecution. The 
issue is plainly made by him, that the regulations which I have 
read are illegal and unconstitutional, and therefore I cannot 
avoid it or refuse to meet it, if I would. His general argument, 
if I understand it correctly, is this : — 

Our Constitution declares that every citizen shall have full 
liberty to worship God according to his own conscience. 

The statutes of 1852 require that children should, for at least 
three months in the year, attend some public school. 

All citizens are taxed for the support of public schools, and 
therefore, have equal riglits in them. 

To require the scholars to repeat the Ten Commandments 
infringes upon their liberty of conscience, and the rule is, 
therefore, unconstitutional. 

Any attempt to enforce an unconstitutional law is illegal, 
and any punishment whatever, for a refusal to obey such a law, 
is illegal. 

If these arguments are sound and unanswerable, then the 
Bible must indeed be banished from our schools forever. 

If a Catholic child not only has a right, but is bound by law 
to attend school ; if, because all citizens are taxed, he has the 
rights which are now claimed, and if what he cliooses to call 
his scruples of conscience, are to be obeyed — then he is not 
obliged to recite nor to hear the Ten Commandments ; he is 
not obliged to repeat nor to hear the Lord's Prayer ; he is not 
obliged to read the Protestant Bible nor to hear it read ; — 
either would offend his Catholic scruples — all are violations of 
his liberty of conscience. 



11 

This is indeed a great question — the greatest and gravest 
question, in my judgment, which this Court will ever be called 
upon to determine ; and as it is now for the first time presented 
here, it is fit that it should be seriously and solemnly discussed, 
and that it should be met and decided upon those broad prin- 
ciples of justice and law which will satisfy all good citizens of 
every sect and race, all who love and are willing to obey our 
laws. No one who knows and cherishes the history of our 
country, — no one who watches now, with fear and hope, the 
dark and threatening signs of the times, — no one who reflects 
upon those essential qualities, those cardinal virtues in the 
citizen, upon which alone a republican government can be 
founded, and by which alone it can be sustained, — but must 
feel and know that this is a question, the importance of which 
cannot be overrated or exaggerated ; — a question which must 
be met boldly, fearlessly, and with entire frankness ; — a ques- 
tion which requires very plain dealing, and justifies very plain 
speaking also. 

My own wish is to avoid all extreme grounds, and to avoid 
all questions which will widen the threatened breach between 
our citizens. I chiefly desire to speak to the complainant, who 
has been instigated to bring this case before the court, and to 
his brethren and friends. I speak to the alien, the emigrant, 
and the exile, who have found refuge here from the wrongs and 
oppressions of the Old World. I appeal to them at once, and 
forever, to abandon as most dangerous and most injurious to 
the true welfare of their children, the counsels of those who 
would array them in opposition to the laws, who would teach 
them to separate their children from those free schools where 
all meet beneath the same roof, speak the same tongue, learn 
from the same books and enter together the great republic of 
letters. 

I appeal to them, to disabuse their minds of the prejudice 
that their liberty of conscience is to be invaded or violated. 
No intelligent Catholic parent really believes it or fears it for a 
moment. I appeal to their own cherished hopes and wishes for 
the welfare of their children whom they love. I appeal to their 
experience of past years, and to the bitter lessons of these past 
few days. I ask every parent to look back upon his own life, 
upon his own daily sorrows and regrets that a free school was 



12 

neyer open to himself, and then to decide whether he will 
sacrifice his children also — whether he will dare, at the bidding 
of priest or politician, to leave his offspring in the shadow of 
that same darkness ; and sadden and darken their lives by the 
same cloud of ignorance which has overshadowed all his own 
weary, hopeless days. 

Unless I can support and sustain these rules as consistent 
with freedom of conscience — as consistent with the purest spirit 
of religious toleration ; unless I can show to our adopted citizens, 
our adopted brethren, that side by side our children can con- 
sistently and properly receive the education which the laws give 
freely and equally to all — unless they can join their little hands, 
and lift their young hearts in common prayer to the Father of 
the fatherless, then these regulations will no longer be defended 
or justified by me. 

Need I deny the unjust charge that the laws of our free 
Commonwealth are hostile or severe, to our adopted citizens ? 
Need I say that ours are no inhospitable or unfriendly shores ? 

Every western breeze that finds it unseen path over the wide 
Atlantic, bears an invitation across the ocean, welcoming the 
exile and the alien, the poor and oppressed of every clime, to 
the land of the free. Our freedom is our birthright and "our 
inheritance ; broad as our land, free and unfettered as the wind, 
which sweeps from one ocean to the other. And this our birth- 
right and inheritance which our fathers purchased with their 
blood, we offer to all and willingly share with all. In the Old 
World the inheritance of the people is the heavy burden of that 
feudal system, under which the lands and the titles, the wealth 
and the power are held by the nobles, and transmitted to their 
children generation after generation. The sons of the soil are 
bowed down by labor, and the sweat of their toil drops upon 
fields they can never hope to win or claim as their own. 

Learning there is the inheritance of the rich only, and is not 
for the poor ; they must bend their backs and bow down towards 
the earth, nor dare to look upwards to the broad sunlight of 
God's eternal sky ; they must bow down their hearts and minds 
to endless, hopeless toil, nor seek to share in the eternal light 
of learning and knowledge, which God has given for all his 
children. The holy stars may shine forever in that far-off sky, 
but dark clouds are floating there between. They must not 



13 

look up to that serene sky, must not look up to those far-off 
stars ; their life must be submission and despondency, not 
aspiration. 

What wonder then that every white-winged vessel which 
leaves the Old World bears its band of emigrants and exiles, 
looking forward toward the promises of the West ; toward the 
hopes and promises of that beautiful clime which they dream of 
far away beneath the. vanishing glory of the sunset — looking 
forward to a new home — to a freer land — to a brighter sky. 
And when the long voyage ends at eventide, — when at sun- 
set, the stately ship furls its white sails in our fair harbor, they 
see before them in the western sky the golden gates of their 
new world, the golden gates of the new El Dorado — not the 
fabulous clime of rivers flowing over golden sands which 
tempted avarice in earlier days, but the true El Dorado of i7ien 
— a land where the soil is free — where the laws are equal — 
where the sunshine of liberty and of learning glows for all, 
blesses all. The emigrants of to-day, do not come as conquer- 
ors like the adventurers of an earlier time. They do not come 
the soldiers of a foreign prince, to extend his dominion, or plant 
his standard on our free shores. They come as friends, as 
guests ; they come as freemen. The emigrants of to-day do not 
bear the banners of Castile and Aragon. The Oriflamme of 
France does not float above their heads, nor does the meteor 
flag of England lead them onward now, but in the western sky 
float the banners of the Almighty, blazoned there in the purple 
and gold of sunset, and inscribed thereon, in letters of living 
light, is the sacred word of libertij. 

But there is a voice of warning as well as a voice of welcome 
for the emigrant and the exile who leaves the Old World, with 
its wrongs and its memories behind him. As he is borne along 
over the wild wide ocean he can bury there all memories of the 
tyranny and oppression which made life a burden. He has left 
behind the heavy yoke of poverty, the despair of ignorance, 
the degrading distinctions of birth, the unequal laws which 
with every rising and every setting sun made him feel the bitter 
truth of the curse, " in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days 
of thy life." 

A new life opens before him on our wave-worn shores. Here 
is a new homo where the laws are equal for the poor and for the 



14 

rich. Here he can win wealth and honor. Here he can be 
one of the citizens, one of the rulers ; here education and honor 
and power and wealth are open to all ; and in the free air, the 
new life, the loftier aims, the higher aspirations of the New 
World, all the Avrongs and sorrows of the past can be forgotten. 
But as he buries beneath the dark waves the sad memories of 
the Old World, let him find a little room there for his chains 
also. 

There is ample room beneath our wide free sky for all races, 
for all sects, for all churches. The stately towers of the 
Roman cathedral, and tlie plain white spires of our New Eng- 
land meeting-houses, pointing from the quiet graves of our 
fathers heavenward, need never encroach one upon the other. 
There is room for all beneath our wide blue sky. 

We give the widest toleration to all nations, to all creeds, all 
opinions ; but there is one power, one tyranny which cannot 
cross the ocean, and that is the tyranny of one man, whether 
his head is encircled with the monarch's crown, or the bishop's 
mitre. Bury those heavy chains, then, beneath the dark waves, 
and as the waters close over them, forget the bondage as well 
as the sorrows of the past. 

Ours is a government of the people — a government of men, 
but o^ free men — and that dark and dangerous power, which, 
under the guise of religion, would grasp the sceptre of the 
State, can never, never be tolerated here. That plant is not 
native to our clime — it can never flourish in our free soil — its 
breath is poisonous to our laws, and death to our liberties — the 
dream must never for one moment be indulged, that one man, 
whether he speaks from the Vatican or from the altar, is to rule 
the destinies of our free people, or to dictate their laws. 

We received that warning long ago, in the farewell address 
of him, whom we love to name as the father of our country. 
It was Washington who said to us : " Against the insidious 
wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow 
citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly 
awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence 
is one of the most baneful foes of republican government." 
Our liberties are our inheritance, and neither foreign power or 
foreign influence can lay sacrilegious hands upon them — sacred 
alike from the warrior's sword and from the priest's infiueuce. 



15 

Aliens and exiles are welcome to our shores ; we will share our 
birthright with them, and inscribe their names on the great roll 
of free citizens ; but they must come as men, and as free men, 
not at priesfs men, and it is no empty form, no meaningless 
oath which compels them, before they can become citizens, to 
renounce all allegiance to any foreign power whatever, to all 
power but the laws. There is a voice of warning, too, which 
the priests must submit to hear, a voice which is already rising 
in low mutterings, far and wide over the land — a warning 
which, unless they hold back their audacious hands, will gather 
and swell until it breaks in thunder above their heads. It is 
now only the little cloud seen afar off over the sea no bigger 
than a man's hand, but it will widen and roll on until it 
becomes a storm and a whirlwind, which no power can control 
or withstand. 

I speak, then, to the emigrant and the foreigner, whom we 
welcome to our shores. I desire to show to them and to all 
who hear me that the nse of the Bible in our schools — the 
teaching of the Commandments — tlie recital of the Lord's 
Prayer from it, are consistent with the true principles of 
religious liberty and toleration. I do not speak of casuistry, 
or of scruples more intolerant than intolerance itself, or of 
subtle and specious doubts. I speak of religious liberty in a 
land of law, and liberty of conscience in a government of 
freemen. 

Let us go back for a moment to first principles ; let us 
endeavor to get clear ideas, and examine briefly what is the 
meaning of these noble words — a government of freemen — 
freedom of conscience — liberty under the laws. The truth is 
that our people are so wholly free that we hardly realize or 
appreciate what is meant by government and law. Our con- 
sciences are so untrammelled that we are unaccustomed to 
reason or reflect upon what freedom of conscience is, and in 
what it consists. We forget that the very essence and founda- 
tion of all government is religion, and yet the truth exists as 
old as the primal stars, that a government without religion 
is as impossible as a universe without a God. We must remem- 
ber that we are not dealing now with questions of fleeting 
opinion, nor with transitory laws, which change and vary as 
society changes, suiting themselves to the necessities and wants 



16 

of social progress and social change. We are reasoning upon 
those elder and fundamental truths which lie at the very basis 
of all society, all governments. We are studying the deep 
bases of the everlasting hills. We are questioning those 
primeval rocks, more enduring than the mountains which soar 
above them ; which time, nor seasons, nor changes, nor decays, 
can alter or wear away. 

The first great truth, then, which we must reflect upon and 
appreciate, is this : that religion is the essential foundation of 
all government, the source and sanction of all power. This is 
the united voice of all true philosophy, of all true statesman- 
ship — it is the lesson and warning of history, and the universal 
experience of the civilized world. Need I remind you, sir, of 
the latest, the darkest lesson of the eternal truth — that a gov- 
ernment without religion is a hopeless impossibility ? Need I 
remind you of that government without religion, founded only 
upon pure reason, based upon the laws of man — that govern- 
ment inaugurated with more than bridal pomp and festivity, 
with songs, and feasts, and dances, when the Goddess of Reason 
was the symbol and the representative of a new era, and in 
triumph led on the choral dance, which ended in the red dance 
of death — in the fearful night and darkness of the " Reign of 
Terror." 

May it please your Honor, our government is based upon 
religion, npon the Christian religion, and it is a vital and 
essential part of the law of the land. 

Not the Christianity of any particular sect or creed, but the 
broad, pure, living Christianity of the Bible ; — we cannot open 
our statutes without meeting with the proof of it. The Bill 
of Rights, to which the prosecution appeal, commences with a 
solemn appeal to the Christian's God — the observance of the 
Christian Sabbath is enjoined, and profanation of it is forbidden 
by numerous statutes. Blasphemy against God and our Saviour 
are crimes punished by law. The oaths which are the protec- 
tion of property, recognize it, and all our laws flow from it, and 
are consistent with it. I might quote from our law books ; I 
might read Blackstone and Story. I might show that all great 
jurists recognize this grand truth ; I might show that all 
writers upon municipal law acknowledge it ; but 1 have a higher 
authority to which I wish to refer. Let me ask you, Sir, to 



17 

hear a voice from the dead, the fittest Oracle of this great 
living truth. I desire to read the profound and eloquent words 
of that great statesman, who sleeps well after his long labors, 
with the solemn voice of the ocean he loved, as his requiem — 
on the lonely shores of Marshfield : — 

There is nothing that we look for with more certainty than this gen- 
eral principle, that Christianity is part of the law of the land. This 
was the case among the Puritans of New England, the Episcopalians of 
the Southern States, the Pennsylvania Quakers, the Baptists, the mass 
of the followers of Whitfield and Wesley, and the Presbyterians ; all 
brought and all adopted this great truth, and all have sustained it. And 
where there there is any religious sentiment amongst men at all, this 
sentiment incorporates itself with the law. Every thing declares it. The 
massive Cathedi'al of the Catholic ; the Episcopalian Church, with its 
lofty spire pointing heavenward ; the plain Temple of the Quaker ; the 
log Church of the hardy pioneer of the wilderness ; the mementos and 
memorials around and about us ; the consecrated graveyards, their tomb- 
stones and epitaphs, their silent vaults, their mouldering contents — all 
attest it. The dead prove it as well as the living. 

The generations that are gone before speak to it, and pronounce it 
from the tomb. We feel it. All, all proclaim that Christianity, general, 
tolerant Christianity, Christianity independent of sects and parties, that 
Christianity to which the sword and the fagot are unknown, general., 
tolerant Cloristianity, is the law of the land. 

And now, with this lamp to guide our feet, let us inquire 
what is the meaning of liberty of conscience under the law ? 
Our Constitution declares that " It is the right as well as the 
duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons, to 
worship the Supreme Being-, the great creator and preserver of 
the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or 
restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God 
in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his 
own conscience, or for his religious profession or sentiments, 
provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct 
others in their religious worship." 

What is the meaning of those noble words, in a land of 

liberty, in a country where Christianity is a part of the law of 

the land ? Does it mean that nothing shall be tolerated bj 

law, nothing shall be sanctioned by the law, nothing shall be 

3 



18 

paid for by taxation, nothing shall be submitted to, and obeyed 
by the citizen, excepting wliat satisfies the scruples of his own 
conscience ? The Jew reviles Christianity and the New Testa- 
ment, and teaches his children that our Saviour was but an 
impostor. And yet he is taxed for the support and execution 
of the laws which will punish him witli a felon's cell if he 
dares to reproach the name of Christ, or blaspheme tlie Holy 
Scriptures. Nay more, although the Christian Sabbath is a 
stumbling block, and an offence to him, although every Cliristian 
Church is hateful to his sight — he is obliged, with certain 
exceptions, to respect the laws for the observance of the Sab- 
bath, and is obliged to pay taxes for the support and mainte- 
nance of that government, of which Christianity is a vital and 
essential part. 

Need I multiply instances ? the Hindoo and the Mahomedau, 
the Pagan and the Atheist, all can be citizens, all are entitled 
to freedom of conscience ; and yet in every transaction of life, in 
every function of government, in every act of obedience to the 
laws, they are obliged to submit to and obey the rules of that 
Christianity which is an offence to their conscience. Is there 
any inconsistency in this ? Is this inconsistent with true reli- 
gious toleration ? By no means. The answer to the question 
lies plainly before us. Every man may ivorship God according 
to his own conscience ; for his religious belief or disbelief he is 
not accountable to any human tribunal. The laws impose no 
form of faith upon his conscience, he is to subscribe to no arti- 
cles of belief, he is to surrender his faith to no creed, he is to 
join no sect. Atheist or Pagan, Catholic or Protestant, he is 
free to believe or disbelieve according to his conscience ; and 
for his faith or his infidelity there is equal toleration. But 
apart from this, and beyond this, he must submit to the general 
laws of the land, and just in the same manner that while we 
declare that every citizen, although free, must submit to numer- 
ous laws which do interfere with and infringe upon his liberty ; 
so does every citizen find in the operation of general rules, in 
the compromises of life, in the necessary concessions of a society 
regulated by general laws, much that is offensive to the scruples 
of his conscience, much that he must submit to and obey, 
although no laws compel him to believe. 



19 

Many good and virtuous citizens look upon war as a crime 
against God, and religion, and yet they are taxed by their 
country to supply the very sinews of that war, which they 
believe to be unholy. Atheists believe that the observance of 
the " Lord's Day " is an idolatrous superstition, injurious and 
offensive to morality ; yet the disciples of Paine and Yolney, 
however it offends their consciences, must cease from labor, 
and, in all but worship, must observe and keep it. 

I repeat, that it is idle and in vain to say that liberty of con- 
science in one citizen means the submission to his scruples on 
the part of all others. It is in vain to say that in a country of 
free but divided opinions, nothing shall exist which is not offen- 
sive to the consciences of many. 

And here let me pause to say, that the danger to our country 
to-day does not lie in intolerance, nor in disregard of the liberty 
of conscience. It lies in animreflecting and timid fear of intol- 
erance. We forget our watchword, that " eternal vigilance is 
the price of liberty." We do not study nor reflect upon those 
essential principles upon which our free government is founded. 
We are so much in fear of intolerance to Catholicism, that we 
become intolerant of that pure and true religion which is the 
sole safeguard of our liberties, without which our loved and 
cherished republic will vanish away — a beautiful but fleeting 
dream. 

But I must not dwell too long upon the examination of these 
general principles, which demand more ample illustration than 
the present discussion will allow. I wish to come more closely 
to the particular question which is to be -decided by the light of 
these general principles. 

My first proposition has been that the Christian religion is a 
part of the law of our ancient Commonwealth. 

My second proposition was that true liberty of conscience and 
true toleration of all forms of belief can exist consistently -with 
that law. 

My third proposition is, that piety and morality are to be taught 
as a part of education, and that this is not inconsistent with 
religious toleration, or entire liberty of conscience. 

This is a question which involves a wide range of discussion, 
much wider than can be entered upon here, where it must be 



20 

decided as a question of authority, of law and of government, 
rather than as a question of etliics, or philosophy, or religion. 
■ I am not speaking of private schools, established by any sect, 
Bupported for any special object or purpose. I am speaking of 
those public schools which are established and supported by 
the government, as great public institutions and charities — 
institutions for which it is lawful to levy taxes upon the citizen 
— charities in the true legal meaning of the word, which are 
recognized as a part of the institutions of the country, and 
protected and supported by its laws. 

If my first proposition is true, that our Government is based 
upon religion, that Christianity is an acknowledged and recog- 
nized part of our law, does it not follow, as of inevitable 
necessity, that in every school founded by government, estab- 
lished and supported by government, religion should be recog- 
nized, and piety should be taught ? I need not repeat, Sir, that 
I speak not of any sect, or church, or creed, not of any form of 
faith. I speak of those principles of true piety and religion 
which have existed from the hour when the morning stars 
sang together — from the hour when God said " let there be 
light" — piety eternal as the stars, religion pure and holy as the 
light of Heaven. 

One of our most eloquent orators has told me that many 
years ago he met Mr. Webster in London, and conversed with 
him upon the future destinies of our country. Mr. Webster 
spoke despondingly of our future. Have you no hope, sir, in 
our education? He shook his head sadly, without a reply. 
Have you no hopes then in the religious education of the people ? 
His whole noble face lighted up, as he acknowledged that this 
was the one bright star, yet shining for his country ; and he 
then expressed his intention of one day laying before his coun- 
trymen his long treasured thoughts upon that great subject. 
How well that promise was kept his countrymen well know. 
Mr. Webster's great oration upon the " Religious Instruction 
of tlie Young " remains to-day the noblest monument to his 
fame, the truest mirror of his character. Tliose who remember 
him only in the heat and dust of political strife, or in his great 
contests at the bar, know nothing of him at all. 

I remember it as one of the fortunate occurrences of my life, 
that I heard Mr. Webster address the Supreme Court shortly 



1 



21 

after the death of the Hon. Jeremiah Mason. He spoke with 
earnest feehng of his early friend, of his deep rehgious behef, 
of his awful reverence for the living God ; and as he dwelt 
upon that great theme — as he by way of contrast spoke also of 
a man without religion, a man whom the Scriptures describe in 
such terse but terrific language as living " without God in the 
world" — as he declared the great truth that " religion is a 
necessary and indispensable element in any great human char- 
acter," it seemed as if the true great soul of the speaker himself 
was revealed ; as if inspired by his theme, he had for once laid 
open and displayed the profound mysteries of his own conscious- 
ness, of his inner self, and of his own lofty and usually inscruta- 
ble being. It seemed as if the clouds which enfolded the lofty 
summits of the mountain had for a moment rolled away, and the 
lofty peaks were visible, radiant in their serene and sublime 
majesty, aspiring forever, soaring forever upward towards the 
everlasting heavens. I believe that in that one moment I 
obtained more insight into that great nature than years of familiar 
intercourse would have given. And I believe, too, that his 
serious and solemn convictions, his highest hopes, his noblest 
thoughts, are more fully recorded in the great oration of which 
I have spoken, than in all the rest of his published works. 

Will your Honor allow me to detach two or three thoughts 
from that powerful argument, which are particularly appro- 
priate to the subject of our discussion ? He says with great 
emphasis : — 

I do say, and do insist, that there is no such thing in the history of 
religion, no such thing in the history of human hxw, as a charity, a 
school of instruction for children, from which the Christian religion and 
Christian teachers are excluded as unsafe and unworthy intruders. 

Again he says : — 

This scheme of education is derogatory to Christianity, because it 
proceeds upon the presumption that the Christian rehgion is not the 
only true foundation, or any necessary foundation of morals. The 
ground taken is, that religion is not necessary to morality ; that benevo- 
lence may be insured by habit, and that all the virtues may flourish and 
be safely left to the chance of flourishing, without touching the waters 
of the living spirit of religious responsibility. With him who thinks 



22 

• 

thus, what can be the value of the Christian revelation? So the 
Christian world has not thought ; for by the Christian world throughout its 
broadest extent, it has been and is held as a fundamental truth, that 
religion is the only solid basis of morals — and that moral instruction, 
not resting on this basis, is only a building upon sand. 

I might multiply authorities of wise and learned men upon 
this question ; but it is not necessary. Can it be argued for a 
moment, that in educating a child, to whom God has given an 
immortal soul, as well as intellectual faculties, it is the duty of 
the State to cultivate the one and leave the other in darkness ? 
Above all things, in a republic which exists only, which can be 
maintained only, by the virtue of its citizens — can it be argued 
that it is the duty of the State to teach every thing but these 
very virtues upon which its existence and well being depend ? 
Will it be said that it is the duty of the State to educate its 
citizens, but that those very virtues which alone are useful to 
the State itself — " those virtues which tend to secure the 
blessings of liberty," shall be a sealed book — shall be forbidden 
forever, banished forever from the schools ? If self-preservation 
is indeed a law of nature, shall not the State be allowed to 
preserve itself, not by war, not by proscription, not by force, 
but by instructing its children in piety and morality and pure 
religion ? But I must remember that I cannot discuss this 
question here, as a question of morality, of philosophy or of 
religion. I am here only to defend and justify an ancient law 
of the Commonwealth, which prescribes, in so many words, 
" that piety, justice, humanity and universal benevolence shall 
be taught in our public schools." 

The principles for which I contend would justify laws far 
more general and comprehensive than this ; and I look for the 
hour when they will be enacted, but this is the law of to-day ; 
and I believe that no one will be bold enough to deny its 
obligation or its justice. 

Tiiis law to which I have referred the Courtis but a re-enact- 
ment of a more ancient statute ; it was sanctioned anew in the 
revision of our laws, and is now found in chap. 23, sect. 7, of 
our Revised Statutes. 

May it please your Honor, we have advanced thus far in the 
argument, and we find that it is a positive law, which neither 



23 

teacher nor scholar can evade, that piety shall be taught in our 
public schools, and I turn now to mj adversaries, to ask the 
question that terminates this controversy forever — from what 
book is piety to be taught in a Republic where Christianity is a 
part of the law of the land ? Is it to be taught from Confucius, 
or from the Vedas and Puranas of the Hindoos ? Shall Plato 
be our instructor in piety, or shall we go back to Zoroaster ? 
No, Sir, there is but one answer that can be given. No skill of 
the opposing counsel can evade it. And I feel that he will not, 
and dare not attempt to answer it. What course he may take in 
his argument I cannot anticipate, but this I know, that he will 
pass this question by in prudent silence. And yet the whole 
case turns upon this one question, and it must and will be 
answered. No craft of the Jesuit can avoid it. No form of 
words can conceal it. The answer comes from every lip, 
Catholic as well as Protestant — it comes from the altar, from 
the pulpit, an.d from the statesman's closet — from the street 
and from the fireside — from the heart of every mother, from 
the lips of every child. There is but one book from which 
we dare teach piety, and that book is God's Holy Bible. 

It would seem that by slow steps we are somewhat advanced 
in this our investigation. We have found that all government 
is based upon religion. That the government of our free 
republic is based upon the Christian religion, and that it is a 
part of the law of the land — that in all public education given 
by the State to its citizens, it is essential that morality, religion 
and piety should be taught — we have found this principle to be 
recognized by our laws and enacted as a positive statute ; and 
the only question remaining is from what book are we to seek 
this instruction — if that indeed can be called a question which 
admits of but one answer — which answers itself. And here I 
might well pause, if this great point is established — for when 
this is settled all the conclusions follow, of necessity — but there 
are many points raised, many arguments advanced, which I 
must attempt to answer. 

It will be said, perhaps, we do not object to your use of the 
Bible — we object only to the common English version of it. 
I feel constrained to say that I cannot believe this is the true 
question. Unless I misunderstand wholly a late letter from 
the Bishop of Boston, if our regulations required the pupils to 



24 

read the Douay Bible together, to recite the Ten Command- 
ments together, to repeat the Lord's Prayer, or chant the 
Psalms of David together, even although they were to use the 
text of the Douay Bible, it would be a " brotherhood in a simu- 
lated union of prayer and adoration, which his church expressly 
forbids "* — but this may not be the ground taken by the counsel 
here, and I will therefore attempt to answer the suggestion that 
our common version should give place to the Douay Bible. 
And the first answer is, that as some version is to be taken ; as 
the Bible in some translation is to be used, as there is a differ- 
ence of opinion, as to which is the best, the question must be 
decided by that tribunal to which the laws have intrusted the 
decision. The school committee are by law required to select 
and decide upon the question of the books to be used, and they 
have determined this question. The common version is by an 
express statute to be read daily, and the committee have used 
and adopted the same version for all other purposes. 

I uphold and justify that decision upon many grounds ; and 
I say first to these gentlemen who are so earnest for toleration, 
who are so fearful of sectarianism, that I object to their Douay 
Bible because it is avowedly a sectarian hook, written and pub- 
lished with that acknowledged object. Our Saxon Bible never 
has been, never can be sectarian. It is quite worthy of remark 
that at this hour it has no express sanction of any sect or of 
any churcli. No creed can claim it as peculiarly its own ; it is 
the common property, the common heritage of all. Nay more 
— it is well known there are more real and essential differences 
of opinion between the various Protestant sects, as to the cor- 
rect translation of various important texts, tlian between the 
Catholics and the Protestants. But for all that, this version is 
— with one exception only — accepted by all sects of Christians 
who speak the English tongue, as a translation sufficiently cor- 
rect — not for sectarian arguments — not for disputes upon points 
of doctrine — not for creeds or schisms — but for the common and 
daily use of Christians, for instruction in piety, in morality, 
and in that pure religion which is high above sects and doctrines, 
as the stars are above the earth ; and for this very reason — be- 
cause the Christian sects who differ upon so many points, are with 

* Letter from the Bishop of Boston to the School Committee. 



25 

one exception willing to unite upon this version — is it fitting 
and proper that this should be adopted. It was the English 
Bible centuries ago. The descendants of Englishmen still 
cherish it. It has been the American Bible for centuries also. 
The Catholics who have emigrated found it here when they 
came, found it here as the people's Bible, found it here in the 
schools which they came to share with us. These reasons alone 
should be sufficient, but there are other reasons for the use of 
our Bible which will, I am sure, appeal to the heart and the 
brain of every foreigner who sends his children to our public 
schools. 

I appeal to their gratitude now, to their sense of honor now, 
as I would appeal to their generosity, if it were necessary, and 
ask them if they would wish to come here to share our free- 
dom, to ask our hospitality, to enjoy the liberties, — the free 
education — the institutions which our fathers purchased at 
such a price, and then take our Bible away ? It was to read 
that Bible in safety that our fathers came to this cold and bar- 
ren shore — that Bible lay in the narrow cabin of the " May 
Flower " — it was the only star that shone for the Puritan in that 
long night of toil and strife and famine, which well nigh ended 
in despair. It was with hands clasped above that Bible that 
Washington prayed in his tent, through those seven long years 
of doubt and distrust, when the " God of Battles" alone sus- 
tained him. It has been the household god of the school-room 
from the infancy of the country. The schools which made us 
free, which will make worthy and true citizens of your children, 
have grown up under its influences. And will you take it from 
us now ? 

It is difficult to discuss this question calmly. I imagine that 
feelings which it is best not to express, are aroused in the heart 
of every American who is told that we must justify or defend 
the use of our old Saxon Bible. I will not trust myself to 
express them. I will ask for any reason for rejecting our com- 
mon familiar version and for substituting another in its place. 
If this were a fitting time or place, I should be very willing to 
discuss the comparative merits of the two versions, either as 
literary productions, or as faithful translations. The Douay 
Bible has its history too, of which I should be very willing to 

4 



26 

• 
speak if it were proper to do so, but this is not a suitable 

occasion. 

May it please your Honor, I ask now for a single candid 
objection to the use of King James's Bible — not the Prstestant 
Bible, but the Christian Bible — the Saxon Bible, which we 
love. Are the particular portions of it which are used in the 
schools objectionable ? Our children are to learn piety from 
it, not sectarianism, or creeds ; but pure religion, undefiled 
before God. They are to learn from it piety, a sacred regard 
to truth, justice, chastity and humanity. Was it from secta- 
rian views that the Lord's Prayer and the Ten Commandments 
were selected as fit lessons of these cardinal virtues ? What 
sect. Catholic or Protestant, has received the monopoly of these 
portions of God's Word ? What priest or preacher can call 
tliem his own ? Are they indeed offensive to the tender con- 
sciences of children ? Is it indeed dangerous that they should 
hear or repeat them ? I am inclined to believe that no one 
who has heard the evidence of the father or his boy, would be 
willing to say that it is either unnecessary or very dangerous to 
repeat to either of them the divine injunction, " Thou shalt not 
bear false witness." Does bishop or priest dare to say that it 
would be dangerous to repeat to the children those sacred 
portions of the Bible ? 

Can it be that even bigotry and fanaticism would take excep- 
tion to the prayer which Christ taught us — to the tables of the 
law which Jehovah himself gave to his children on Mount Sinai ? 
Is it one of that order of priesthood which has assumed to itself 
the name of the " Society of Jesus," who has found it a neces- 
sity of Christian duty to forbid liis followers from repeating the 
Lord's Prayer ? Has he forgotten that it was Jesus who said 
" suffer Utile c/iildren to come anlo me and forbid them not.'' 
Jesus who bade his disciples go forth into every land and teach 
the Gospel to every creature — that he dictated to his disciples 
the lofty worship, the simple and patiietic beauty of that miracu- 
lous prayer, in which all the nations of the earth might together 
lift up their hearts to God without remembering any distinction 
of sect or race or creed ? Subtle and artful as men have been 
in raising doubts, untiring as they have been in creating differ- 
ences of opinion — no sect, no dogma, has yet been founded 
upon that marvelous, that inspired prayer, which in its divin-o 



27 

sweetness and purity embraces in itself the "whole Christian 
religion, and the universal worship of God — that simple but 
sublime prayer in whose thanksgivings still linger the tender 
tones of a gentle mother's voice teaching it at eventide ; the 
sweet, natural music of home. Was that priest unwilling that 
his flock should unite with the children of heretics, and join- 
ing their hands and their hearts, say with them, " Our Father 
which art in Heaven, hallowed be thy name ? " Was he 
unwilling that the children of the Huguenots and the Puritans 
— the children of those Protestants who remembered the moun- 
tains of Piedmont and the Waldenses — who remembered the 
night of St. Bartholomew and the fires of Smithfield — should 
join with his flock, and say " forgive us our trespasses as we 
forgive those that trespass against us ? " 

But it is said there is a difference between the Catholic and 
Protestant version of this prayer. I have not forgotten it ; it 
will be very long I think before I shall forget it, or forget that 
in the book which was produced here in court ; the hands of 
some little fanatic, who had been taught hatred and bigotry 
under the name of Christianity — or of some priest who feared 
for the tender consciences of his flock, had carefully and indus- 
triously obliterated the closing words of the prayer, " For thine 
is the Kingdom, the power and the glory forever. Amen." 

Are those reverential ascriptions of proise dangerous and 
heretical ? Is the worship which acknowledges our Heavenly 
Father as the source of all power, as the Ruler of the Universe 
— is that worship to be denounced and proscribed by one who 
calls himself the priest of the living God ? Was it for this 
that he gathered the children of his flock together, and by 
threats of a shameful exposure from God's altar, persuaded them 
to violate the laws of their country — persuaded them to rebel 
against their teachers — persuaded them to sacrifice the great 
gifts of education ? 

How vain and how shallow are such pretences. How trifling 
and immaterial are the verbal differences which are now insisted 
upon. Does any one fail to see that this movement is only a 
settled, and determined, and preconcerted opposition to our 
Holy Bible ? Does any one fail to see that it is because the 
prayer is read with Protestants, that the Catholic children are 
forbidden to join in it — that the Catholic priests are resolved to 



28 

• 

banish it from our schools ? This is the ground which the 
Bishop of Boston has openly taken in his letter to the school 
committee, and although we can see that the counsel for the 
prosecution will not be bold enough to take it here, we can all 
very plainly see that it is the great and the real objection. 

Can there be any more sincere ground of complaint because 
the children were called upon to repeat the Ten Commandments ? 
Are the lessons of piety and morality which they teach offen- 
sive to the conscience or sinful to hear ? Have these divine 
commands lost any thing of their obligations in the progress of 
civilization ? Has their sublime morality lost its virtue ? Is 
there one commandment which to-day any Christian of any sect 
dare disavow ? 

Over three thousand years ago these tables of the law were 
delivered from Mount Sinai by our Heavenly Father — when the 
" mountain burned with fire into the midst of Heaven, with 
darkness, clouds, and thick darkness " — when Jehovah said unto 
Moses, " Gather me the people together and I will make them 
hear my words, that they may learn to fear me all the days that 
they shall live upon the earth, and that they may teach their 
children.'''' 

Has that divine injunction lost its force ? Is it useful at this 
hour to teach those divine precepts ? Would it wound the 
tender consciences of children to be taught those ancient and 
holy commands ? Is any intelligent Catholic parent really 
unwilling that his child should repeat them ? Who that has 
watched the signs of the times — who that has watched the 
winds, and the waves, and the dark clouds which drift along 
our stormy sky, fails to see the object and end of all this move- 
ment ? No, no, there is no fear for the consciences of the 
children ; the real objection is to the Bible itself, for, while that 
is read daily in our schools, America can never, never be 
Catholic. I am told that the most zealous of English Catholics 
acknowledge that England can never be Catholic so long as 
they keep their Saxon Bible. Of its power over the hearts of 
the people, an Englishman has most truly and eloquently said : 
" King James's version lives in the ear of a Briton, ' like music 
that can never be forgot, like the sound of church bells, which 
the convert hardly knows how he can forego. Its felicities 
seem to be almost things, rather than mere words. It is a part 



29 

of the national mind, and the anchor of national seriousness. 
The memory of the dead passes into it. The potent traditions 
of childhood are stereotyped in its verses. The power of all the 
griefs and trials of man is hidden beneath its words. It is the 
representative of his best moments, and all there has been about 
him of soft, and gentle, and pure, and penitent, and good, speaks 
to him forever out of his English Bible. It is his sacred thing, 
which doubt has never dimmed, and controversy never spoiled. 
In the length and breadth of the land there is not an English 
Protestant with one spark of religiousness about him whose 
spiritual biography is not in his Saxon Bible.' " Yes, all that 
is true ! True for Englishmen to-day, but how much more 
deeply and dearly true for us ? 

Of all the wealth of happy England, of all their birthright 
and inheritance this sacred book was all that our ancestors 
brought with them to these, then barren and unkindly shores. 
They left behind them their lands, their wealth, their titles, 
their kin, their country, and the sweet memories of home. It 
was to read this Bible aright ; to learn from it the mysteries of 
the living God, that they gave up all which man holds sweet 
and cherished ; and does any one dare now to hope that this 
Book will be driven from our schools ? Never ! never I The 
sun may turn back in its course, the stars may fall as the leaf 
falleth from the vine, and the heavens may be rolled together 
as a scroll, but until we have sold our birthright of freedom, 
never, never will the descendants of Englishmen consent that 
the Saxon Bible shall be banished from their free American 
schools. 

But I may be told that our fears are groundless, that they 
do not object to our Bible, but to the particular use made 
of it in this particular case. We are not to be deluded by such 
specious arguments. We well know the foe with whom we 
deal ; they will be content with any step in advance, if it be but 
the thousandth part of an inch, and bide their time for the next 
step. 

This is no time for timid concessions, no time for politic 
compromises ; the enemy are to be met at the gates. We see 
through their plans and strip off their plausible disguises. I 
repeat that their objection is to our Bible, our whole Saxon 
Bible, and they cannot consistently stand upon any other 



30 

• 
ground. "Why do you object to the Lord's Prayer, and to the 
Decalogue, and the reading of the Scriptures ? Because you 
say " it offends our consciences." " We believe it is not the true 
version of the Word of God ;" that version is " used as a means 
of attack upon our tenets." " The form and words are offen- 
sive to the conscience and belief of the Catholics." Be con- 
sistent now, gentlemen, if you object to reading that Bible or 
reciting from it. Is it because it is offensive in form and words 
to your Catholic consciences ? Will you be any better satisfied 
then if it is daily read to your children by their teachers ? Will 
any bishop, any priest, tell me that he is iv ill lug' to have that 
untrue version of God's word, so offensive to Catholic conscience 
and belief, read daily to his flock by their heretic teachers ? 
No, if it is intolerant to ask the children to read or recite that 
Bible, it is intolerant to read it to them ; if it is intolerant to 
ask them to recite the Ten Commandments, it is also intolerant 
to teach them. If to ask the Catholic chiklren to join in 
repeating the pure religion, the simple and pathetic supplications 
of the Lord's Prayer, offends their consciences, then any 
instruction in piety from a Protestant is offensive, and the Bible 
must be banished forever from our schools. 

Concede the first point, that you are bound to excuse Catho- 
lic children from reciting from the Bible, and you are bound to 
concede that they shall not read it. Concede that they shall 
not read it, and you are bound to concede that it shall not be 
read to them. No other course is possible if the first false 
step is taken, and no one sees this so clearly as the priest who 
has so rashly commenced this attack upon our institutions. I 
appeal from bishop and priest, to the unfettered intelligence of 
our adopted citizens ; I appeal to the countrymen of Burke, 
and Sheridan, and Grattan, and Curran. Do you, who wish to 
become American citizens, you who wish to draw closer the 
bonds of a common country and a common freedom, fear that 
your children will suffer because they, with united hands and 
hearts, lift up their tender voices in common prayer to that God 
who is the Father of all, whose rain falls alike upon the just and 
the unjust, who is the God of all nations, of all races, all 
climes ? 

I repeat once and forever, that there is not any sectarianism 
intended or taught by the use of tlie Bible. We do not ask 



31 

your children to adopt our translation as tlje true one. If any 
point of doctrine arises upon any text of our Bible or theirs, 
they are free in tlicir faith as we are in ours. They are 
instructed to interpret the second commandment in one way, 
and we in another. No one wishes or seeks to disturb their 
faith ; we do not ask them to say or to believe that ours is the 
true word of God, or the best translation of the tables of the 
law which God delivered to Moses. Our teachers, in their 
great duty, teach lessons of piety from the onlij source from 
which it can be taught, and the children are free to believe or 
disbelieve them, free to worship God according to the faith of 
their fathers, free in their faith, free in their consciences. 

I repel altogether the specious pretence that our Bible is not 
tJie Bible, because the translation differs in some particulars 
from the Douay Bible. Every translation from the original 
Hebrew and Greek must of necessity vary — must of necessity 
be more or less perfect, according to the accuracy and perfec- 
tion of the language into which it is translated, and the learning 
and skill of the translator. The Holy Scriptures have been 
translated into over two hundred different languages ; but they 
are always the Bible. Not the Bible of the Catholic or the 
Calvinist — not the Bible of the Methodist or the Episcopalian — 
but the Cliristian Bible. 

As well may we be told that God's eternal sky is not the same. 
It clothes itself with vanishing, ever-changing beauty fi'om season 
to season, from hour to hour. It robes itself in the tender violet 
hues of spring, the deep, cloudless transparency of midsummer, 
and the dark, steel-blue of a northern winter. It arrays itself 
equally in the delicate rose and opal hues of dawn — the impe- 
rial purple and gold of sunset — and at midnight it wears its 
royal robes of state, all flecked with countless stars ; but in all 
changes — in all climes — it is always God's eternal sky, the 
same sublime image of that wondrous eternity which lies behind 
us, and before us — the same holy symbol of the all-embracing 
love of our Heavenly Father. 

And now may it please the Court, I have but to sum up this 
this part of my argument in a few wgrds. 

They say that the regulations of the school committee violate 
the Constitution, whicli protects all citizens in tlieir liberty of 
conscience. 1 answer that their conscience is left free — they 



32 

are not called upon to believe or disbelieve any thing. Their 
faith is their own — we do not ask them to yield one iota of it. 
They may find offence in our laws, and in our customs. That 
is always the consequence of general laws. They found us 
with these institutions — they have accepted the benefits of them 

they must bear with the inconveniences also. And, I say it 

in all kindness, but it is proper it should be said, there are 
many causes for offence which Protestant parents also find in 
the laws which compel their cliildren to mingle with the chil- 
dren of the Catholics. Let us hope for mutual forbearance and 
mutual submission to the laws. 

And now, may it please your Honor, that I have briefly dis- 
cussed this great question in the cause, there is another issue 
which it is my duty to meet. This case has been planned and 
arranged with a great deal of artifice, the snare was very skil- 
fully laid, but I think I shall be able to give Father Wiget 
good reason to regret that he selected this as the time, or the 
place, or the manner of taking his first step in the great move- 
ment of expelling the Bible from our schools. It is my duty to 
expose this artifice, and it is an easy task ; in doing it, I shall 
also prove, beyond all possibility of question, that this is not a 
case of conscience or of scruples of conscience. The truth is, 
that a very cunning plan was laid, the object of which was to 
have a boy whipped for his religion, in order to raise the cry 
of religious persecution, as I will presently prove. 

I cannot admit that the pretended objections raised by the 
Catholic pupils are " not mere fetches and pretences devised 
for the purpose of creating a difficulty." * This case fortu- 
nately, very fortunately, is full of conclusive evidence to the 
contrary, and I beg the attention of the Court to it. No one 
can fail to remember the manner in which this cause was 
originally brought before the Court. It was pretended that an 
intelligent and interesting little boy, religiously educated, was 
bidden with threats to violate his tender conscience ; that in 
vain he pleaded the commands of his parents, the solemn les- 
sons of his religious instructor. His prayers and appeals were 
all in vain ; he was ruthlessly beaten until his wicked perse- 
cutors, frightened and shocked at their own cruelty, ceased 

* Letter from the Bishop of Boston to the School Committee. 



33 

their stripes, and endeavored to hide the bleeding evidence of 
their pitiless tortures. Has your Honor forgotten that picture 
of religious fanaticism and persecution, that touching picture 
of the infant saint and martyr ? I am half inclined to believe 
that my learned friend, who opened and tried the case so ably 
and so well, had worked himself up to the faith that this small 
citizen had the already sprouting wings of a cherub under his 
waistcoat. He was a saint in embryo, — a small sized martyr 
in jacket and trowsers. I confess that I could not but sympa- 
thize with my friends, when all the poetry, all the picturesque 
charm and color of this picture was banished so rudely, on the 
last day of the trial. Wliat a shocking blow was given to our 
sensibilities ; what a ludicrous " behind the scenes " appeared 
when we heard that this small saint, who was willing to be 
" kilt " for his conscience, — who vowed with infinite pathos 
that he would never be a coward to his religion ; — when we 
heard that this very small and somewhat dirty little martyr 
was out in the streets where the boys were playing marbles 
declaring with tlie true fervor of a pious Catholic, " Faith and 
I warn't agoin to repate thim damned Yankee prayers." What 
a very abominable and altogether absurd little cherub to be 
sure. I would have given money for one peep into the breasts 
of my friends on the other side, at that precise moment. I 
wonder if, as they lieard the poetry of their case, the glory and 
the beauty of their dream, vanish forever in the irrepressible titter 
which no one in the court house could resist, when that evi- 
dence was given, — I wonder if they did not say to each other, 
that Father Wiget's bread and butter saint ought to have been 
whipped once more, and more thoroughly. This, may it please 
your Honor, is the delicate, the tender, the more than feminine 
purity of conscience, which cannot submit to say " hallowed," 
instead of " sanctified," which does not revolt from the words 
of our " Ten Commandments," which accepts them all, 
acknowledges them all ; but flies as from impurity, which shuns 
as sacrilege the repeating those very words, unless they are 
divided* according to the holy dictation of Father Wiget. 

* Wall testified that his objections to the commandments was because thejr 
were not divided as the Catholics divide them. 
6 



34 

• 
What volumes of the benignant teaching of the Jesuit, what 
touching pathos, what sweet infantine love of God, what tender 
delicacy of conscience, spoke in those words, " Faith and I 
warn't agoin to repate thim damned Yankee prayers." Was 
it for that pious ejaculation that Father Wiget gave the boy 
his symbolic medal of brass, whitewashed with silver, in that 
very memorable interview at the Jesuit's house, of which the 
boy, although it took place but the night before he was called 
as a witness, was really unable to remember a single word 
excepting the important, the saintly, the pious instruction to 
" go home to his supper ? " 

I have a few words to say as to this boy and his father. 
There is a very material question of veracity to be settled 
between them and the teachers of the school who have been 
called as witnesses. If I am able to prove them wilfully false, 
your Honor will be compelled to admit there was o, great motive 
for the falsehood ; if they are proved to be wilfully false, no 
one can dare to say that this is a case of suffering for con- 
science sake ; if they are proved to be false, and the teachers 
are relied upon, then, not only is this case at an end, but a plot 
is exposed which must excite the indignation of every hearer. 

I remember. Sir, that 1 was assailed somewhat rudely by the 
able and eloquent senoir counsel, who told us that after my 
terrible cross-examination of his rather blasphemous and very 
profane little saint he nearly or perhaps quite fainted away. Per- 
haps it was the attempt to find out and confess what that very 
suggestive and significant and quite symbolic whitewashed 
medal was given to him for, which weakened little Saint Tom's 
tender frame. I remember that it was a question very general — 
very pertinent — very often asked — never answered — a question 
which has been asked a great many times since by persons who 
take an interest in this trial — What the priest did give that medal 
for, the night before the boy was to be a witness ? Tliis was on 
the first day of the trial. May I ask my eloquent friend, if that 
very interesting and quite painfully honest little martyr fainted 
away after that other very striking scene in court, on the last 
day of the trial, of which he has not yet spoken ? I desire to 
recall that scene, with somewhat of form and precision, to the 
mind of the Court, for a flood of light is thrown from it all 



36 

over the case — over the manner in which a religious persecu- 
tion question — a question of suffering for conscience sake — has 
been gotten up (in a very bungling, and very stupid manner, 
I must be allowed to suggest) by the pious Jesuit of St. Mary's. 
It cannot be forgotten that we had proved by the testimony of 
the respected principal of the Eliot School — Mr. Mason ; by the 
young lady assistant in his room — Miss Marsh, whose intelli- 
gence and candor spoke in every line of her fair face — that the 
father of the boy, when he had been dismissed, the Monday 
previous to the day of the rebellion, had brought him back, 
and heard from Mr. Mason a full explanation of the rules of 
the school, and of the precise differences between the Catholic 
version of the Ten Commandments and that which was printed 
in the boy's books. It was proved that he ordered his boy to 
say them, and directed his teacher to punish him severely if he 
did not obey ; that he took pains to say that the boy ivas not to 
be sent home, that he was not be expelled from school, but was 
to be made to say the Commandments, and to be punished 
severely if he did not, I am quite sure that no one who heard 
these witnesses, no one who heard the very long and elaborate, 
and very skilful cross-examination to which they were subject- 
ed, could doubt for one moment their entire truth. It was 
with a good deal of suprise, I think, that your Honor heard 
the boy and his father called to contradict this clear and posi- 
tive evidence. And yet they had the folly to come upon the 
stand and wilfully and audaciously to deny it altogether. 1 
believe that no one who heard them, no one who witnessed 
that scene when, more plainly than I ever before saw it in a 
court of justice, deliberate perjury was proved out of their 
own mouths ; when the boy, conscious of his falsehood, stood 
mute, but confessing his crime by his silence, with the fraud 
and the crime so obvious, so awful, that in those moments of 
suspense you could hear the very silence in the crowded court 
room — no one who heard the boy that day, would say that it is 
unnecessary or would be useless to repeat weekly or daily to 
that son of that father the awful command, "Thou shalt not 
bear false witness." 

I have read some pathetic histories of persecution for con- 
science sake ; I have read of martyrs whose meek and saintly 



36 

• 

demeanor drew from their enemies tears of rapturous admira- 
tion — martyrs who died in sublime self-oblivion, died in fiery 
coronation robes, when the rolling smoke, crimson-tinged, 
floated far up the sky, vanishing in heaven as the pang and the 
horror vanished also in the victory that swallows up all strife. 

I fear that I am so much of a heretic that I cannot persuade 
myself that this boy is a martyr, and I do not think he looked 
like a martyr or a saint when he was so plainly exposed in his 
falsehood. 

I am afraid that I do not appreciate with a sufficiently keen 
sensibility the religious side of this present persecution for 
conscience sake. I am afraid that I am liable to a conviction 
for holding the very heretical and abominable doctrine, that this 
very interesting Wall and his very interesting boy, are terribly 
given to " drawing the long bow," and that their pretended 
tenderness of conscience is mere moonshine on the water. 

This question whether Wall and his son are false or not, is 
very vital to this cause, as I will presently show ; and I there- 
fore ask the Court to remember the father's evidence now as 
well as the boy's. The Court will remember that it was proved 
that this boy, and the other Catholic boys, had been in the 
habit for years of repeating the Ten Commandments without 
objection — a very material fact bearing upon the same vital 
question, to which I am presently to ask your Honor's atten- 
tion. I have not only proved that this boy had done so, but 
that in particular, since September last up to the week of the 
rebellion, he had done it constantly ; and yet in the face of this 
proof, the boy dared to stand up here and swear boldly under 
" medal," or other influences, that he had never once repeated 
them. His father dared to swear to the same thing, and he 
swore that for the last six years, ever since his boy was four 
years old, he had forbidden him to say the Protestant Com- 
mandments. I was satisfied that Wall was telling a deliberate 
falsehood and I desired to make it apparent. I therefore in the 
cross-examination put the questions which I think your Honor 
will very well remember. 

" Had he really been obliged to tell his son so ? " 

" Sure he had, and he and the priest both had forbidden his 
boy to say them, a thousand times." 



8T 

" What, a thousand times ? " 

" Yes, faith, and more than that, five thousand times over, 
he forbid him and me both." 

" Let me remind you that you are on oath, Mr. Wall, before 
you repeat that." 

" Faith and it was o(ier five thousand times." 

" What, you yourself have been forbidden five thousand times 
by your priest, to say the Ten Commandments ? " 

" Yes, and indeed I have, and more too." 

'* Well now, Mr. Wall, please to remember that you are upon 
oath, and tell the Court of even one time when any body asked 
you to say the Ten Commandments, and when it was necessary 
even once for the priest to forbid you ? " 

Wall was in difficulty. " Oh ! that's no matter," said he. 

" Pray tell me, Mr. Wall ; name one time out of the five 
thousand." 

" Oh ! I didn't mind when it was," said he. 

" Can't you tell once out of all the five thousand ? " 

A light of inspiration suddenly flashed upon him, and then 
with a cool impudence, and a ready lie — which he enjoyed as 
much as any one — which no one could hear without a smile : 

" Faith, it was in the ould counthry they did it," said he. 
He evidently thought he could get out of the way of cross- 
examination, if he could but take refuge in his native bogs. 
But it was all in vain. 

" So it was in old Ireland that you were told five thousand 
times by your priest that you must not say the Ten Command- 
ments, was it ? " 

" To be sure it was, your Honor ; who ever supposed it was 
any where else ? " 

" But who asked you to say the Protestant Commandments 
there ? " 

" No body asked me to say them ; we weren't bothered with 
thim things there," 

" But the priest told you five thousand times to be sure and 
never repeat the Protestant Commandments ? " 

" To be sure he did ; ain't I telling you so ? " 

" But why should he tell you not to, if nobody asked you to 
say them ? " 



38 

• 

He was evidently stuck in his own native bog. But it was only 
for a moment. With the same gusto, with the same enjoyment 
of the lie that helped him, as he thought, out of his difficulty, 
he said : " Wasn't it thim botherin' tractmin, to be sure ? " 

" Oh ! the tractmen wislied you to say the Protestant Com- 
mandments, did they ? " 

" To be sure they did." 

" What, nothing else but the Commandments ? " 

" To be sure not." 

" And did they really ask you five thousand times to repeat 
them ? " 

" And more, too, fur the matther of that." 

" And the priest forbid you all of five thousand times to 
repeat them ? " 

" That he did, to be sure." 

Poor Wall, no wonder he emigrated, with five thousand Pro- 
testant tractmen at one ear shouting the " Ten Command- 
ments," and five thousand priests, shaven and shorn, at the 
other, shouting to him : " Be kilt for your religion, man." No 
wonder he was obliged to emigrate. That is a specimen of his 
evidence, and I am forced to say that may be Catholic honesty, 
but it is what we should call very like downright Protestant 
lying. 

But it was a darker, sadder scene than tliat, when in narrating 
what was told him by liis boy, he stated what we all knew to be 
false, deliberately, wickedly false. The boy was called to the 
stand immediately — and there they stood, father and son, con- 
victed of falsehood, convicted of crime — without escape — with- 
out excuse — without any possibility of evasion, even through 
the readiness of Irish wit. I am sure that no one who witnessed 
that scene will ever forget it. It was a dark and fearful com- 
mentary on this fetch and pretence of a tender conscience whicli 
would be violated by the Lord's Prayer, wliich would be sullied 
and stained by God's holy Commandments. 

I turn from that dark scene to ask several questions which, 
as I said, will throw a flood of light upon the darkness of the 
case. Why was it that on the Sunday before tlie boy first 
refused to say the Commandments, a few parents and only a 
few boys were gathered in a basement room in that Jesuit 



39 

Church in Endicott Street ? Why was it that this boy alone on 
the next day refused to repeat the Commandments which he for 
months and years had repeated without a murmur ? Was it in 
order that he might be vjhipped ? Was it in order that the 
Jesuits might raise the ciy of religious persecution ? — might 
under that cry arouse public feeling, and drive the Bible from 
the schools ? 

If so, they were disappointed. The boy was not whipped ; he 
was simply told that he must obey the general regulation, or he 
must bring his father there and have the matter explained. He 
was sent home. That was on Monday. He did not return, as 
his father swears, until Wednesday. Why was that delay? 
Was there any consultation with the priest going on ? What 
followed is very strange. The boy is brought back. The 
teacher is told with great care — and the injunction is repeated — 
that the boy must say those very Commandments. He is told 
that the father wants the boy kept at school^ and not dismissed 
if he refuses to respect the commands ; but that he must be 
punished, and punished severely, if he refuses. How did the 
father know beforehand that the boy would refuse ? Why did 
he wish him punished severely if he did ? No one can fail to 
see through all this. We see that this was no accidental whim 
of one parent or one child — it was a deliberate, a concerted 
plan, in which all were to join, and this strange conduct of the 
boy and the priest and his father show that their object was 
to catch the teachers in their snare and compel him to whip 
the boy. 

Do not forget upon this very point the significant evidence 
that the boys said they intended to refuse to repeat the Com- 
mandments, and that they expected to be whipped and expelled 
from the school. The rest of the story is soon told. On the 
following Sabbath, the same priest instigated nine hundred 
pupils to break into open rebellion. The boys go to school, 
they stamp on the floor and make a disturbance by whistling, 
loud mutterings, and scraping their feet while the Lord's 
Prayer is repeated. This Wall boy makes himself the most 
forward^ he is the ringleader to whom all the other boys turn. 
He cannot be sent away, for his father earnestly requested that 
he should be kept in school and punished severely. 



40 

• 

I think we begin to see the clouds breaking away a little. 
I think we understand something about the reason of those 
mysterious visits after dark to the Jesuit's house, the night 
before the boy was to be a witness. I think we begin to know 
now how it came to pass that the father should knoiv before- 
hand that the boy would refuse ; why the father was so anxious, 
and why he called the second time to repeat that he wanted 
the boy kept in school and punished severely. 

I think we understand now the meaning of that significant 
confession which I extorted from the boy, that he was angry 
because his hands were bathed in cold water, after he was 
whipped, because he ivanted to have them all swollen and look- 
ing as bad as he could. I think now it is no longer our unan- 
swered question, why was that medal given by the Jesuit 
Wiget, to this boy alone, among all the nine hundred boys ? 

Can any one doubt now that it was the deliberate intention 
of this Father Wiget and his accomplices, to break up the regu- 
lations of the school ? That it was their wish and expectation 
that one or more of the boys should be whipped ? Can any 
one fail now to see the reason of the evasions, the quibbling, 
the falsehoods, and the pretended forgetfulness of the boy and 
his father ? 

This plot was beautifully arranged. This play of the " Haint's 
Tragedy," was put upon the stage with a great deal of scenic 
effect ; but now that we are fairly got behind the scenes and 
see the wire-pulling and the scene-shifting, it looks a little 
absurd — does it not ? 

I very respectfully beg to leave this part of the case, with 
the parting advice to Father Wiget, that the next time he gets 
up a sacred drama for public exhibition in our courts, he would 
remember there is an American institution called cross-exami- 
nation, which sometimes operates as a " free pass " behind the 
scenes. I would also affectionately cau.tion him to waste no 
more medals on doubtful saints, or on those precocious but pro- 
fane little martyrs, who are ready to die for their religion in 
the school-house, but in the streets, " Aint agoin torepate thim 
damned Yankee prayers," If any one now believes in the 
purity of conscience of this boy and his father — if any one 
really believes that they are any thing but the willing tools and 



41 

accomplices of more artful men, I liavo nothing further to 
say. I have exhibited now the background of the picture, and 
I think no one will fail now to see or understand who are the 
real criminals who have usurped the place of accusers. 

There arc many points that I wished to touch upon which 
my brief argument does not allow me the opportunity to dis- 
cuss, but there are two or three which I must not wholly pass 
by, although I cannot argue them fully. 

It is said that all are taxed for the schools, and all should 
have equal rights in the schools. All are not taxed equally to 
be sure, but all do have equal rights here. The same regula- 
tions apply to Jew and Christian, Protestant and Catholic — the 
same bejiefits are given to all, the same burdens are borne by 
all. 

It is idle to say that the Catholics do not have equal rights 
because we do not give them svpreme rights ; that they do not 
have equal rights because they cannot, at the will of their 
priests, compel us to forbid the use of the Bible in our public 
schools. 

This question, however, has been so fully determined by the' 
authority of the case of Donahoe vs. Richards, in the 38th 
volume of the Reports of the State of Maine, that it is no 
longer necessary to argue it. 

Your Honor is familiar with that case ; it is an authoritative 
determination of our courts of law that the Bible can be used 
in schools without infringing upon the liberty of conscience. 
I cannot but say, however, that I regret that the decision was 
not placed upon rather higher grounds. It seems to me that 
we are to meet this question, not upon the ordinary level of the 
plain and simple rules for ordinary school discipline and the 
selection of common school books. It is to be met upon the 
sunny and serene heights of the law, where the grand principles 
of the science of jurisprudence soar far above the customs and 
the usages of a busy mercantile world — where the great prime- 
val truths, which are the foundation of government, of society, 
of morality, alone are taught — where law and religion walk 
hand in hand. 

It is said that the children are compelled by the statute passed 
in 1852 to attend school. If I have maintained my proposition, 



42 

that nothing illegal is exacted of the pupils, if their freedom of 
worshipping God, in their own manner, is not taken away, then 
the objection is immaterial. It should be noticed, however, that 
the law is by no means so strict as has been supposed. It was 
intended to prevent vagrancy and crime. No child has been 
obliged to attend school who has already learned the studies 
commonly taught there ; no child need attend school who is 
taught at home ; no child need attend school who is too poor ; 
and above all, any child can attend any school of any kind that 
his parents may select. 

And now in closing, there are few words more to be spoken. 
It may be said, it has been said, that this question is met with 
too much of earnestness and zeal. I trust that it will never be 
met otherwise. It is too great and too vital a question to be 
passed by lightly. I would wish indeed to avoid all that can 
give offence, all that can cause heart burnings or alienation to 
the emigrants whom we admit as free citizens ; but they must 
remember that they come to learn as well as to enjoy our 
institutions. They must submit to hear very plain speaking on 
questions so sacred, so vital to our whole country as this. 

They know not what they do, or they would never dare to 
attempt, as they have done, to violate our household gods. 
This i^ no question of politics or for politicians — the people will 
never intrust it to them. It is a question for every fireside, 
for every heart. I know that there is not a mother through- 
out our land, from one ocean to the other, who did not 
feel a sudden thrill of indignation and horror when she first 
heard that the Catholics were attempting to drive our Saxon 
Bible from our free schools. Little do they know the spirit of 
American liberty who think that this can ever be accomplished. 
Timid men may be found to consent to submission, — politicians 
may be found who wish to conciliate foreign voters — thought- 
less men who do not reflect upon the great interests of their 
country, — but there is a united will and power of the people 
which if this movement is persevered in they cannot fail to 
know, — and I dare to say to all, to bishop and priest and emi- 
grant, that until liberty ceases to be any thing but a shadow and 
a name, that Saxon Bible will be the companion of the American 
freeman — his pillar of cloud by day, his pillar of fire by night. 



43 

Tho Saxon Bible at the cradle of the new-born infant, bj the 
death-bed of the gray-liaired father ; the Saxon Bible on the 
mother's knee as she teaches her child to join his little hands 
in prayer, and lift his heart away from earth, away from its 
hopes and fears, its joys and sorrows, to his Heavenly Father ; 
the Saxon Bible in the statemaii's closet, and at the poor man's 
hearth ; the Saxon Bible in the child's free school, and the child's 
free heart. Never, never can man or priest pnt asnnder those 
whom God has joined together. Banish the vain dehision for- 
ever that onr Saxon Bible can be taken away ; neither foreign 
tyrants or foreign priests will ever have that power. Until 
America ceases to be a repnblic,— nntil the warnings of 
Washington and the wisdom of Webster are forgotten,— until 
the sacred traditions of the past have perished,— until the 
memories 6f the dead have passed away like a dream,— until 
religion and freedom are banished from the land, it will remain 
as tiie rule and guide of our faith, tho Great Charter of our 
liberties. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



030 218 989 4 



